If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I agree with everything here except the part about Trump promising to drain the swamp of rich elites. When did he say that? I think he's putting in rich guys with the idea that they can't be bought. I don't think he ever promised not to put in rich white guys.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by savafan

Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

As I stated above, Adam Dunn is a touchy subject because we've sat and watched the very mention of his name elicit nastiness from both camps. Rarely did it promote intelligent, civil discussion - more often than not, it was 'I'm right you're wrong'. Now that he's no longer truly relevant to the team this site exists to discuss, I do not see a continued need to rehash these arguments in otherwise unrelated threads.

Originally Posted by savafan

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well.

You could total all the threads in this site's history that discussed Austin Kearns, Dmitri Young and Josh Hamilton and it wouldn't scratch the surface on the number of the same Adam Dunn debates we've already had that soon turned nasty. This is not an issue because he's an ex-Red - it's an issue because the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death and it's in the best interests of the site to move on now that he no longer plays for the Reds.

Originally Posted by savafan

I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended.

Compare this site to any other of its size and I can pretty much guarantee you we have equal or lesser moderation - relatively speaking. That being said, if you want to go somewhere where you can say whatever it is you want to say, regardless of the rules of the site, this is not the place for you.

Originally Posted by savafan

Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem.

What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001? Since this site's inception, the very topic has easily been the most divisive subject because people feel so passionately (in a positive or negative way) about his game that it often leads towards not being respectful of others that don't share the same opinions. I distinctly got the impression that some people came here more to argue with others that they don't agree with more so than they do to civilly discuss the game of baseball and those days are over.

Originally Posted by savafan

Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team.

Because these people have voluntarily agreed to offer their free time to help enforce the rules of the board and keep the site running? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Originally Posted by savafan

I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

That's not why this is an issue. Look, if you want to go somewhere to discuss political or religious threads or to say whatever's on your mind without any repercussions, we have a link to such a site in the forum listing. But this site was not founded upon those ideals - it was, however, founded upon being respectful to others, and this topic has caused far more problems than it's solved. I do not see the value in continuing to allow that to happen now that the topic is no longer relevant to the Reds.

Originally Posted by savafan

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

See my responses above. Unfortunately, sites with 2,300 active members need some form of moderation or you have a different problem altogether.

Originally Posted by savafan

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle

If the past Adam Dunn discussions were examples of what you quoted, we'd have no problem allowing them. Unfortunately, that's not been the case.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by remdog

I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

I agree 100%.

The new censorship policy really cheapens the website. How is anyone supposed to take a Reds fansite seriously if you can't discuss the team's best player of the last decade?

If there is a problem with people being rude and nasty then those people should be censored -- not the entire topic.

I think the draconian policy has really stifled conversation on the ORG. Interesting threads have been few and far between for a long time now.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

As I stated above, Adam Dunn is a touchy subject because we've sat and watched the very mention of his name elicit nastiness from both camps. Rarely did it promote intelligent, civil discussion - more often than not, it was 'I'm right you're wrong'. Now that he's no longer truly relevant to the team this site exists to discuss, I do not see a continued need to rehash these arguments in otherwise unrelated threads.

We went through the same thing with SABR vs. traditional stats, The Trade, steroids, etc., yet we never put the kibosh on those discussions.

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

You could total all the threads in this site's history that discussed Austin Kearns, Dmitri Young and Josh Hamilton and it wouldn't scratch the surface on the number of the same Adam Dunn debates we've already had that soon turned nasty. This is not an issue because he's an ex-Red - it's an issue because the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death and it's in the best interests of the site to move on now that he no longer plays for the Reds.

You're talking about Reds fans here, these people don't know how to move on. We're still living in 1975-1976 and 1990, with passionate adoration for Pete Rose.

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Compare this site to any other of its size and I can pretty much guarantee you we have equal or lesser moderation - relatively speaking. That being said, if you want to go somewhere where you can say whatever it is you want to say, regardless of the rules of the site, this is not the place for you.

We have one more moderator and many more locked threads than nyyfans.com, and they have 18,000 more members than us...and a political discussion forum.

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001? Since this site's inception, the very topic has easily been the most divisive subject because people feel so passionately (in a positive or negative way) about his game that it often leads towards not being respectful of others that don't share the same opinions. I distinctly got the impression that some people came here more to argue with others that they don't agree with more so than they do to civilly discuss the game of baseball and those days are over.

Then wouldn't the act of the moderators be to deal with those specific posters that get out of hand? Locking everything before, and in case, it goes down a nasty road isn't moderation, it's censorship of people's ideas and passions, and passion is something that's been sorely lacking around this team for far too long. It's akin to forbidding a man to have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Because these people have voluntarily agreed to offer their free time to help enforce the rules of the board and keep the site running? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

I know moderating and administrating an internet message board is a thankless task, but the rest of us also give of our free time to make the board what it is with the discussion we provide. I understand that this is Boss and GIK's board, but if no one came to it to post, it would still be Boss and GIK's board. We are a community, respectful of one another, free to debate one another, and if that gets out of control then we take care of it from there. Look, I know I'm just one poster, but 7 years and 14,000+ posts, presenting the name of the Old Red Guard forum, sharing my thoughts on baseball and a variety of other subjects with people who've shared with me as well...I feel that I also have an investment of my time and loyalty here, which is why I feel so passionate.

I'm not trying to cause problems, or attack any one person or body of people by bringing this subject up, I'm just sharing how I feel...and I know I'm not the only one. I'm trying to present the argument without being argumentative. This sub-forum is for feedback, and that's what I'm providing. I'm not going to let my feelings about this carry over into the other areas of the board.

My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

I agree that the individuals responsible should be held accountable for beating dead horses. Unfortunately, that requires more moderation, but on the bright side, I think the current moderators could handle it. When it comes to Adam Dunn, for example, I think we should be allowed to discuss him as long as it's objective.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by savafan

Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well. I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem. Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team. I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Yeah, savafan, I just think you should know that I am tremendously thankful for how you have responded in this thread. I think I can speak for several others who believe you represented our beliefs in an intelligent and respectful manner and what you have said is exactly how I feel. Well done!

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I agree with everything here except the part about Trump promising to drain the swamp of rich elites. When did he say that? I think he's putting in rich guys with the idea that they can't be bought. I don't think he ever promised not to put in rich white guys.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001?

AtomicDumpling's HR thread for Dunn for one. Each new HR for Dunn was new, unchartered territory and he (Dumpling) provided us with a background and perspective for just what Dunn was accomplishing. Cheated is the wrong word, but I feel I've been deprived of a certain appreciation for what an (now) ex-Red has done in his career.

IMO, closing it was a mistake, and it should be reopened as of Opening Day. Will it cause a little more moderation? Maybe. Check that - probably. But that's what they signed up for. While I appreciate all that the mods and the admins do for this site, I honestly don't feel bad to ask them to make sure one of the best threads the ORG had going can stay alive. Basically all it asks is for Atomic Dumpling to keep doing a freakin phenomenal job, keeping the rest of us well informed of the history - and the present effect - of the game.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

Well, that is a violation of rule #5 and those posters should should have been dealt with accordingly. All you need to do is set a precedent for how these things get handled and people will shape up. If they understand that there are consequences then I highly doubt the activity will continue...

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I agree with everything here except the part about Trump promising to drain the swamp of rich elites. When did he say that? I think he's putting in rich guys with the idea that they can't be bought. I don't think he ever promised not to put in rich white guys.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

I actually agree with locking that thread, but it's not so much for the baiting involved. If you ask me, it would have been a good post in an official Adam Dunn thread, but I don't think the information called for a new thread.

Re: Site Feedback/Questions

Originally Posted by Screwball

AtomicDumpling's HR thread for Dunn for one. Each new HR for Dunn was new, unchartered territory and he (Dumpling) provided us with a background and perspective for just what Dunn was accomplishing. Cheated is the wrong word, but I feel I've been deprived of a certain appreciation for what an (now) ex-Red has done in his career.

IMO, closing it was a mistake, and it should be reopened as of Opening Day. Will it cause a little more moderation? Maybe. Check that - probably. But that's what they signed up for. While I appreciate all that the mods and the admins do for this site, I honestly don't feel bad to ask them to make sure one of the best threads the ORG had going can stay alive. Basically all it asks is for Atomic Dumpling to keep doing a freakin phenomenal job, keeping the rest of us well informed of the history - and the present effect - of the game.

Thanks for your supportive comments Screwball. I appreciate it. I was extremely discouraged when the thread was locked.

I have received many encouraging PMs and posts over the past two years about the home run tracker threads. Those messages really inspired me to continue putting in the hundreds of hours of research and writing that went into that project. There were several other posters (especially Big Klu) that made valuable contributions to the thread as well. One of the things I was most proud of about that thread was that it never devolved into a debate.

A couple people have suggested I continue the Dunn Home Run Tracker project on a blog since it is no longer welcome on Redszone. I thought that was a great idea and I am strongly leaning towards doing it. The blog would also make a nice home for some other projects I am considering.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball